ML20216C292

Requests Addl Info Re Evaluation of Rev 1 to Issue Specific Action Plans I.D.2 Guidelines for Administration of QC Inspector Tests, VII.a.4, Audit Program & Auditor Qualifications & VII.a.8, Fuel Pool Liner Documentation

ML20216C292
Person / Time
Site:	Comanche Peak
Issue date:	06/23/1987
From:	Charemagne Grimes NRC OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROJECTS
To:	Counsil W TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC)
References
NUDOCS 8706300256
Download: ML20216C292 (8)

Text

q June 23, 1987 I

Docket Nos. 50-445 l

and 50-446 l

Mr. William G. Counsil Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company j

400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 j

Dallas, Texas 75201 q

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ISAP RESULTS REPORTS j

As a result of our ongoing review of the TU Electric Results Reports for ISAP I.d.2, VII.a.4 and VII.a.8, we have determined that additional in-formation is needed to complete our evaluation of these reports. The I

requested additional information (RAI) is listed in the Enclosure. We I

request that you provide the additional information within 30 days of receipt of this letter.

Sincerely, (originhl signed by)

Christopher I. Grimes, Director Comanche Peak Project Division 1

Office of Special Projects

Enclosure:

DISTRIBUTION,,

1 97 As stated

.D, DocketaFile u%s HSchierling CPPD Reading File JLyons cc: See next page-OSP Reading File RWarnick NRC PDR DTerao Local PDR CHale JKeppler IBarnes JAxelrad FAshe OGC-Bethesda DNorkin ACRS(10)

GMizuno CGrimes I

l AD:CPPD:0SPs D:CPPD:0 AD:CPPD:

CIGrimes HSchierlingVcm JLy@ons 06 87 06 @ 87 06/23/87 8706300256 870623 PDR ADOCK 05000445 A

PDR

O

'o -

UNITED STATES g'

8.

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o

. k,.

3

<j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 g

June 23, 1987 Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446 Mr. William G. Counsil Executive Vice President Texas Utilities Electric Company

.400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas ~, Texas 75201

Dear Mr. Counsil:

l

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ISAP RESULTS REPORTS-As a result of our ongoing review of the1TU Electric.Results Reports for ISAP.I.d.2, VII.a.4 and VII.a.8,'we.have determined.that additional.in --

formation is needed to complete our evaluation of these. reports'. The requested additional information (RAI) is listed in the' Enclosure. We request that you provide.the ' additional'information within 30 days of receipt of this letter, j

d Sincerely, 1

C.1.T Joa Christopher.I. G es.. Director Comanche' Peak Project Division Office of Special Projects.

)

Enclosure:

As stated

'i cc: See next page

]

1 1

i 4

i

'1

(

)

i

'[' ;e f

g

s.

4 C

3 W. G. Counsil Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1 and 2 cc:

Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.

Asst. Director for Inspec. Programs Ropes & Gray Comanche Peak Project Division 225 Franklin Stree.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Boston, Massachusetts 02110 P. O. Box 1029 Granbury, Texas 76048 Robert A. Wooldridge, Esq.

Regional Administrator, Region IV Worsham, Forsythe, Sampels &

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Wooldridge 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 2001 Bryan Tower, Suite 2500 Arlington, Texas 76011 Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny A. Sinkin Mr. Homer C. Schmidt Christic Institute

(

Director of Nuclear Services 1324 North Capitol Street

{

Texas Utilities Electric Company Washington, D.C.

20002 j

Skyway Tower j

400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Ms. Billie Pirner Garde 1

Dallas, Texas 75201 Government Accountability Project j

Midwest Office l

Mr. Robert E. Ballard, Jr.

104 E. Wisconsin Avenue y

Director of Projects Appleton, Wisconsin 54915-8605 f

Gibbs and Hill, Inc.

11 Pen Plaza New York, New York 10001 David R. Pigott, Esq.

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 600 Montgomery Street Mr. R. S. Howard San Francisco, California 94111 Westinghouse Electric Corporation P. O. Box 355 Anthony 2. Roisman, Esq.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230 Suite 600 1401 New York Avenue, NW Renea Hicks, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20005 Assistant Attorney General Environmental Protection Division Robert Jablon P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Bonnie S. Blair Austin, Texas 78711 Spiegel & McDiarmid 1350 New York Avenue, NW Mrs. Juanita Ellis, President Washington, D.C. 20005-4798 Citizens Association for Sound Energy 1426 South Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 Ms. Nancy H. Williams CYGNA Energy Services 2121 N. California Blvd., Suite 390 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

kl..

~

-7

_ Comanche Peak' Electric Station Texas Utilities Electric Company Units 1:and'2

'cc:

-Joseph F. Fulbright Fulbright & Jaworski

-1301 McKinney Street Houston, Texas 77010 r'

-Mr.' John W. Beck' Vice-President-Texas Utilities. Electric Company Skyway Tower:

400 North Olive Street, L.B. 81 Dallas ~, Texas 75201 Mr. Jack Redding c/o'Qatel Service Corp.

Texas Utilities Electric Company 7910 Woodmont Avenue, Ste. 208 Bethesda, Maryland 20814

. William'A. Burchette, Esq.

Counsel for; Tex-La Electric' Cooperative of Texas' Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell-3 1

Suite 700 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW-Washington, D.C. '20007 i

James M. McGaughy.

l GDS. Associates, Inc.

1 Suite 450 2525 Cumberland Parkway' l

Atlanta,- Georgia.30339 3

1 i

Administrative Judge Peter Bloch

.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

20555-Elizabeth B. Johnson Administrative Judge.

'i Oak Ridge. National Laboratory' P. O. Box X, Building 3500 Oak Ridge,1 Ten'nessee= 37830'.

.Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom 1107' West.'Knapp-4

Stillwater, 0klahoma.- 74075 Dr. Walter H. Jorda'n Administrative.-JudgeL 881: West'0 uter Drive j

0ak Ridge,; Tennessee L378301 t.

m

..f.

y

g.g

~

-a

.w..

1 j

ENCLOSURE:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION.(CPSES)

NRC REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ISAP RESULTS REPORTS I.d.2, VII.a.4'AND VII.a.8

,,c

-A.

ISAP I.d.2 (Rev.1)', Guidelines for Administration of 0C' Inspector Test:

1.

On page.12 of ISAPLI.d.2 it "is stated that significant changes were; i

E made to the..TV Electric QA/QC Review Team procedures.and that another, review was performed.of work already completed by the TV Electric-Special. Evaluation Te'am (SET).nHowever, page 9 of-this Results Report stated'that.no' specific procedures'were developed _-to7 implement this' ISAP.

Further, in~ response to the.ASLB Question'#11L(TV Electric Answers:of December!!8,'1986 to-Board's 14 Questions'Regarding' Action:.

Plan Results Report I.d.2), it is stated that noLunexpectedldifficultie's '

)

were encoun. tere.d. Describe in detail these apparent discrepancies.

2.

On.page 26-of ISAP I.d.2 it is stated:that oneiof. the cjeneric.implicaR d

~

tions of ISAP I.d.2 is the'possible certification?of unqualified-inspectors. This is particularly true, since the only historical files -

reviewed were for electrical inspectors-(i.e.,. files of inspectors no longer at the site). lYou: stated that<ISAPs I.d.-1,and VII'.c are adequate j

in scope to address thisf area.. Provide!a furthers explanation 'of howl j

. these ISAPs will! consider the other;historicali.. inspectors.' qualifica -

tions and how ortif the effectiveness of those inspectors. that 'have.

R been properly qualified will-be' assessed.;

L B.

-ISAP VII.a.4. (Rev.1), Audit Pr'ogrami and Auditor Qualifications:

1.

The. Results Report on -ISAP VII.a.4,f as:well'as otherLResults' Reports -

which thelstaff. received, failsjto clearly? identify and. describe the~.

-disposition of the numerous external source 11ssues' raised'in documents _

a such.as those generated by the.TRT Jand inithe reports by the' Manage-q mentAnalysis' Corporation-(MAC)(..manyofwhicharesummarized.by.theT staf.f in Appendix P'.of SSERi11 May!1985). iThe-CPRT Program' Plan; commits to fully resolve'each of the external source 1ssuesL ;Ac-4 cordingly, a clearEidentification should beiprovided'of each ~of:those.

l issues together with their; resolution asJthey relate to these and the other ISAP Results Reports.

If the Results. Reports arefnot the'..

mechanism TV Electric plans;to use tof accomplishithis comitment,n a'. description of the method..should:be:provided that willibe:used to!

implement this ' commitment'and the1 schedule-forfits completion -

2.

On page 14 of ISAP.VII.a.4"it is stated that' additional rationale;.

~

for the selection of vendors'that'were reviewed:is contained in,the' 1

working files for thetISAP... Clearly; identify the:"additionalfration-L

~

j a

]

~le"' referred'to..

.I[

'I i

,h ;

b i

4 r-y t

)

Y c

f

,e q',

3.

As stated on pages-24 and_25~oflISAP VII-a.4 the CPRT concluded.

.that the Westinghouse' site. organization 1was not involved in safety-related activities,-thus they would not be. subject to periodic audits'by TV. Electric. The basis.for?this conclusion was that the; primary function of this group'was to. provide liaiscn with other j

~

Westinghouse organizations, which ' agrees with:the' conclusions of-two' audits by.TU Electric. -While.this may.be generally _true, of:

necessity some of the Westinghouse site group.functicns' involve.

~

activities'su_bject to 10 CFR;Part 50, Appendix B'(e'.'g.,Lprocessing

' documentation;or information pertaining to; design, changes,.construc-tion or. erection).

Accordingly. identify the QA programs that' control these: activities, and the organization _. responsible for auditing these-activities.u Describe how TV Electric = satisfies the. audit: requirements of ANSI N45.2.12, 4.

.0n page 28 of_ISAP VII.'a.4 itfis conclu'ed that:the' failure.to d

. perform vendor audits on an annual frequency resulted in no adverse-effect;on the program because-of additional. activities implemented ~

Lby the QA organization to" supplement-the. audit' activity. Provide the:

< basis and accuracy of this conclusion in. light;of.known problems;with, vendor' supplied materia 1 (e.g., penetration, assemblies problems. whose.

4 rootcauseisas.yetun'dertermined)andwithoutthe.resultsof ISAP VII a.9 being.known.

Based'on an evaluation"of 29 internal. audits conductiedLin-1983,' the-CPRT concluded that the audit program' coverage 'during 1983 was.

adequate. The matrix:CPRT' developed for;this'eva19ation' revealed d

the audit program addressed;the major ongoing site'.a d vities1(but noi statement that'all_ safety-related; activities-were' audited) that'alli s

site. organizations were audited ' and;that all program elements"

. ( Appendi.x B' criteria) were addressed;(but no statement that' all program elements were audited.in allisite organizations);. : Provide :a)

?

more complete basistfor the conclusion that; program coverage was7 h

D

'adequateufor 1983' audits

' 5.

- On page 29 of ISAP: Villa.4 it is conclNed thetith flack of a.'for :

~

- malized methodology:for internalfauditt planning <andtscheduling.

1 c

resultedzin no adverse'effect on'the auditLprogram'because;it was:

established that: audit 2 planning was accomplished and: audit schedules 5

y

.were prepa' red to implement.the audit program.L Explain whyt ths. audit 7 1

program did notl detect:and correct:those: items, for' example, which resulted in;the need for the'.QA/QC ISAPs.

a

-Theconcern;identifiedon'page:0-234ofSSER11[(MayL1985)involvedi Lpersonnel! performing audits from organizations!other than the audit' group, particularly groups.'outside the'.QA organization.::You'r'as-=

,y sessment. as. stated on page 31._ofilSAPiVII;a.4,> focused 'only on.

1

' quality engineers or surveillance' personnel participaing;in auditsb, Provide your assessment'of the" independence / objectivity;of1 personnel;

, used ton audit teams frontall organizations Land groups.c Further, onj oH page 0-209 through 0-211 of:SSER'11"another11nstance wasTidentifiedu o

n y

c J

n d

3 ::

a

~

A g

))

~

l

?

v4 4

u e

"[n s

4 1

.t?

g i

]O

G m

3-

, 1; whe're'an individual was inspecting his own work.

Provide your assessment of this practice, including how widespread it was.

t 6.

In Section 5.3, " Evaluation of Findings" on page 40 of ISAP VII.a.4, several recommendations are made and areas identified for program enhancement. Provide TV Electric's disposition of each of those findings.

l 1

~ ISAP VII.a.8 (Rev.1), Fuel Pool. Liner Documentation:

C.

~

I 1.

As stated on page 5 o'f ISAP VII.a.8, the. refueling cavity was not included in~this ISAP.- The refueling cavity is an extension of'the area considered. Therefore.. discuss the' basis for.its exclusion.

a t

2.

In Section'4.4 of ISAP.VII.a'.8 (page 7) it is stated that matrices l

and data sheets were developed as.part of this ISAP.

In the TV Electric-

'l response to the " Opening' Request" in " Answers to Board's 14. Questions

-j Regarding Action Plan Results Report VII.a.8",' dated' January 21,-1987, i

it is stated that no checklists were generated for this ISAP. _ Provide.

the basis for not identifying the above ISAP sheets and _ explain the apparent discrepancy between the ISAP and the response:to the Board, i

3.

0n'page 12 of ISAP.VII.a.8 it~1s stated that_the Welder Qualification 1

- Matrix (WQM) was. used to. verify.the. qualification. of welders'. - TU. Electric -

performed a spotcheck-to. confirm the accuracy of the WQM._ Since the 1

WQM is not_a document or record subject to 10.CFR Part 50, Appendix ~B,-

further.' description.should be provided on how the accuracy ~of the WQM '

is assured. 'In. addition, provide the basis for reviewing only;160 weekly WQMs when the. time of interest. covered'approximately 600 weeks.

4. -

The Gibbs & Hill Specification ~2323-SS-'18 specifies gas tungsten arc welding with deviations approved by the Architect-Engineer (AE).

On' page 12. of ISAP VII.a.8 it'is stated thatl welding-procedures WPS 88031 and 88032 for' shielded metal; arc welding (SMAW) were..used -

also.- ' Provide further informationL concerning the. approval for use of the SMAW.

5.

On page116 of'ISAP'VII.a.8 it is-stated that records... included in the TU Electric review covered the time from January 1978'through;

. April 1983. ' Based on dates elsewhere'in this-Results' Report, it ap :

pears the activities of interest ranged-beyond these~ limitsi Provide further information concerning the: time boundaries of the total ~

population, the time boundaries of the_ samples selected, and the '.

actual' times of construction'and inspection. ~ Justify any anomalies in ISAP VII.a.8 coverage which these various' time' periods indicate'.

-6.

.In Section~ 5.8'of ISAP VII.a.8 (page-20) it isistated'that the lineri

-construction program was' unique and,'therefore. the results would not.

-be applicable to other site. activities.

Identify-and' describe those attributes 1that makei this' area of Lconstruction and inspection unique; and how both construction and' inspection in this area are so uniques as to.not applytelsewhere.

i 1

'i

.,i>

t}

j ec

2

- t

$4-

-h

- :4 l

1

-7.

- As stated on page 21 of ISAP.VII.a.8 corrective action is recom--

mended.to: be taken by the Engineer, TV Electric Nuclear. Engineering :

7 Department-(TNE).

Describe'the' action that TNE has-taken or will:

d take,'the schedule for completion, and who will. assure its proper conduct.

8.

On page'23 of ISAP VII.a.8 it is stated that there is a substantial l

amount of. information available that thejliner system was-properly constructed and inspected.

Identify this information and describe

~

j the basis for this conclusion.

i i

!y

.I E

i A

3,

-,9 t

I f

y